Agent Arrested and Convicted for Selling an Annuity.

[VolAgent]

If he was an accomplice he would have been charged as such. Apparently they feel Glen acted alone.

Don't be naive, there are lots of time the police or DA feels that someone is guilty, but they feel they lack enough evidence for a conviction.

 

[bobson]

So, to take this to its logical conclusion (my apologies for the extremism, but I want to make a point)....

I rob a bank. I get caught. During the trial, my defense is I didn't really rob the bank since all they had to do is ask for the money back, therefore, its not really robbery?

I don't think I would hang my hat on that defense.

I will readily admit, this gets very confusing!!!

Dan

That is a poor argument. In order to rob a bank you have to use force.

Glen sold an approved product to a customer whom he had no idea was demented nor could have known since he is not a doctor.

This case is absurd.

 

[CALTCAgent]

Don't be naive, there are lots of time the police or DA feels that someone is guilty, but they feel they lack enough evidence for a conviction.

I can't see how they would lack evidence as to Lou's knowledge as to her mental competence and/or dementia but a total stranger "should have known" her mental competence.

I think if I was a DA and I wanted to find evidence as to who would know a thing like that, I'd find a lot more evidence with a family member than a stranger.

 

[hardworkwillwin]

I can't see how they would lack evidence as to Lou's knowledge as to her mental competence and/or dementia but a total stranger "should have known" her mental competence.

I think if I was a DA and I wanted to find evidence as to who would know a thing like that, I'd find a lot more evidence with a family member than a stranger.

They may of had a harder time convincing the jury a boyfriend who lived with Fran for 15 years, and who was the beneficiary,and his daughter the contingent beneficiary would do something wrong? Instead they chose an easy target. An insurance salesman.No really this was nothing more than malicious prosecution.The truth will come out someday.
Insurance News - Client

 

[0b1kanobee]

I turned away an annuity strategy (my services) back when this whole story was coming out because this guy wasn't all there in the head. I won't go into details. Anyway I get a call from his health agent asking me for help with this guy because his LTC policy lapsed (I helped get it reinstated). Anyway the agent tells me he is broke and can't buy his medications (he has a supplement). I say impossible because I know how much money he had last time I met with him (well over 200k).

Turns out some young girl moved in with him (like 35 years younger) and now all his money is gone. Apparently either this young girl spent it (stole it) or his sister did. Call either of them and one just blames the other. I did tell him when I was trying to put something together to see an attorney but he insisted that since he was an attorney he didn't need one.

So here is a case where I could of helped him at least preserve most if his money but my hands were tied which I explained to the sister who at one time had POA. She blew me off anyway.

It's a long story and I've left a lot of details out but that's the law for ya protecting seniors. Pretty sad situation.

 

[Mr_Ed]

That is a poor argument. In order to rob a bank you have to use force.

Glen sold an approved product to a customer whom he had no idea was demented nor could have known since he is not a doctor.

This case is absurd.

you don't haev to be a doctor to know that someone is demented.

 

[Norwayguy]

you don't haev to be a doctor to know that someone is demented.

True but it is also true that people with dementia can be more lucid at times. The DOI investigator spoke to the client 8 months later and the court case was 2 years after the sale.

 

[djs]

The 'facts' of this case are frequently overlooked. Unfortunately, we still only have one side, so we don't have all the facts, but we do know that:

- Glenn and Lou were acquaintances, if not friends. They talked frequently. Its hard to believe Lou never mentioned issues with Fran.
- Fran was diagnosed with dementia, well prior to the annuity sale. Granted, there is no way I know of for an agent to be aware of this, if they don't know the person.
- Glenn has known Fran for years, at least in passing. He has known Lou much better than this.
- The bank called Glenn to alert him of the problem. They did not object to the annuity, but apparently about Lou. After this, Lou's word was used to validate Fran was okay.
- The family was not involved in the transaction, an attempt was made after the sale.
- I have no idea how this becomes theft, but, there are a lot of weird laws that I don't understand.

There is enough here that this should have been looked at, especially since this is the defendants provided statements without the other side chiming in. It doesn't mean it should have went further, but my guess is, Glenn upset someone and it snowballed from there.

Normally, this deal would have just been unwound (and it eventually was), and a sort of 'no-harm / no-foul' rule called. Why wasn't this done here? When you know that, you'll know what the case was really about.

And by the way, I agree that the fact that the commission was paid by the carrier and not Fran is irrelevant in this case. It isn't an issue of where the money came from, its that the person was 'enriched' by the activity. Glenn was compensated. Where the compensation from the transaction came from doesn't matter.

Dan

 

[hardworkwillwin]

The 'facts' of this case are frequently overlooked. Unfortunately, we still only have one side, so we don't have all the facts, but we do know that:

- Glenn and Lou were acquaintances, if not friends. They talked frequently. Its hard to believe Lou never mentioned issues with Fran.
- Fran was diagnosed with dementia, well prior to the annuity sale. Granted, there is no way I know of for an agent to be aware of this, if they don't know the person.
- Glenn has known Fran for years, at least in passing. He has known Lou much better than this.
- The bank called Glenn to alert him of the problem. They did not object to the annuity, but apparently about Lou. After this, Lou's word was used to validate Fran was okay.
- The family was not involved in the transaction, an attempt was made after the sale.
- I have no idea how this becomes theft, but, there are a lot of weird laws that I don't understand.

There is enough here that this should have been looked at, especially since this is the defendants provided statements without the other side chiming in. It doesn't mean it should have went further, but my guess is, Glenn upset someone and it snowballed from there.

Normally, this deal would have just been unwound (and it eventually was), and a sort of 'no-harm / no-foul' rule called. Why wasn't this done here? When you know that, you'll know what the case was really about.

And by the way, I agree that the fact that the commission was paid by the carrier and not Fran is irrelevant in this case. It isn't an issue of where the money came from, its that the person was 'enriched' by the activity. Glenn was compensated. Where the compensation from the transaction came from doesn't matter.

Dan

Read this Dan
Insurance News - Client

http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=343302&type=topnews

 

[CALTCAgent]

The 'facts' of this case are frequently overlooked. Unfortunately, we still only have one side, so we don't have all the facts, but we do know that:

- Glenn and Lou were acquaintances, if not friends. They talked frequently. Its hard to believe Lou never mentioned issues with Fran.

Lou was primary beneficiary and his daughter the contingent. Maybe he didn't want to mention issues to Glenn?

It doesn't mean it should have went further, but my guess is, Glenn upset someone and it snowballed from there.

I was thinking the same thing.

And by the way, I agree that the fact that the commission was paid by the carrier and not Fran is irrelevant in this case. It isn't an issue of where the money came from, its that the person was 'enriched' by the activity. Glenn was compensated. Where the compensation from the transaction came from doesn't matter.

I thought it was the surrender charges not the commission that caused this to be a theft?

Being deprived of the use of your money?